Evolutionary Psychologist on Women, Trump, and American Sex Culture

RKB's fatness and obsession with sex with women is revealed in this picture, although men are also in her date book

Most of you know retired professor Kevin Macdonald. His academic career was spent studying Jewish culture. For that, he’s been labeled as antisemitic, which is a label applied to anyone who tells the truth about Jews.

K Mac writes here of how hedonistic Hollywood Jews denounced Trump for his language that acknowledges that men act in ways that are consistent with evolution. In other words, many of those denouncing Trump are hypocrites. They live their own lives as sexual libertines while denouncing Trump for participating in that culture in the same way that they do.

Concisely, Trump gets to have a lot of sex and so do the (((elites.))) Evolution explains why.


Submitted by Kevin MacDonald via Occidental Observer

What Trump said:

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p—y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

So now we have a media frenzy, the theme of which is that Trump has shown himself to be a horrible sexist and abuser of women. “Rape culture in a nutshell” as a writer in the Huffington Post would have it.

As usual, it’s a moral indictment. Of course, moral indictments of Trump have been routine ever since he entered the race, often centered on race and immigration. But now the chorus is deafening. So much so that quite a few Republicans (mainly those who never supported him or did so only reluctantly — i.e., the GOP establishment cuckservatives) are now (surprise!) deserting him.

The implicit assumption here is that the women involved are passive, helpless creatures who are being assaulted by the big bad hairy ape. Heaven forfend! Fainting couch feminism at its finest.

Spare me.

grab them by the pussy

What Trump is saying is that, because he is a star, women are entirely open to his advances, and as an evolutionary psychologist, I would have to say I am utterly unsurprised at this. Evolutionary psychology 101.

Trump is nothing if not an alpha male. He is rich and he is a celebrity. His comments happened in Hollywood where the culture of sex, celebrity, money, and power has been entrenched for 100 years. All that talk of the casting couch has a strong basis in reality. And it’s well known that male movie stars have access to a very active sex life if they want it. It would take a lot of will power to pass on a life that pushes the buttons of quite a few of your evolved pleasure centers.

So we have the spectacle of ultra-liberal, Trump-hating Hollywood — the absolute center of the American culture of sex, celebrity, money and power — somehow failing to notice the hypocrisy.

This is not about rape. (That’s Bill Clinton’s thing — with Hillary’s collusion; it goes without saying that rape is evil.) Women are willing participants in this culture of sex and power, and they often have much to gain by indulging males, or at least they may think they do. As Trump said, “when you’re a star, they let you do it.”

The evolutionary psychology of sex is that males often gain by maximizing the number of sexual partners. That’s because the act of sexual intercourse is low-cost for males, while for females in the environment we evolved in, it could be very costly indeed — pregnancy, the danger of childbirth, lactation — and that’s just infancy. As a result we expect females (or those who control them, such as parents) to be very choosy about whom they mate with, whereas males are not expected to be as choosy—unless they plan to be a good father and invest in their children. But a culture of monogamy and good parenting is not what Hollywood is pushing.

But even under conditions of monogamy, males benefit from extra-pair matings in a way that females can’t. And throughout history, males who compete successfully (i.e., achieve social dominance, like Trump) have been able to turn their social success into reproductive success, or, in our society, a very active sex life with willing females. So a major finding in history is that wealthy, powerful males had access to many females. Think Chinese emperors with hundreds of concubines, Muslim sheiks, and African chieftains.

Or Genghis Khan. By achieving unprecedented military success, he and his male descendants were able to establish large harems of women throughout Asia. Based on modern Y-Chromosome data, his lineage has 16 million direct male descendants in the modern world. (But it didn’t happen with European kings — interesting question as to why.)

And the flip side is that women are attracted to successful males. Read any romance novel. Or look at the real world and notice which men are getting the attractive women. Willing attractive women.

But an important strand of modern feminism is to try to turn men into beta males who are willing cucks and wouldn’t think of coming on to a woman in an assertive way. If you’ve been around a university lately, they’re full of them. Sensitive guys who are likely horrified by that brute Trump.

So we have articles like “Trump is the climax of America’s masculinity problem” in the Atlantic, “Donald Trump and the crisis of masculinity” in Counterpunch, and “Donald Trump is a parody of American manhood — and that’s what lifts him” in the LATimes.

The sad thing is so many women have bought into this. It’s pathetic that as America heads into a watershed election, the entire focus of discussion is on how Donald Trump thinks of women.

Grow up. Get in the real world.

Having said all that, let’s talk evolutionary psychology 2.0. The mainstreaming of the Hollywood culture of sex, celebrity, money and power has not been good for the society as a whole. Trump has apologized for his comments, and he is well-advised to do so. Part of his apology could be to say that he got caught up in this culture because of its obvious appeal to his nature as a male, but he rejects it now because of its harm on the wider society. You might say that Trump has taken advantage of all the aspects of corruption available in contemporary America—the tax loopholes for the wealthy, hiring foreign labor in order to be competitive, investing in casinos despite their drawing on the worst human compulsions, contributions to pliable politicians, and doing the celebrity sex thing. And as he said about much of this, he knows the system inside-out and realizes the need to change it.

The fact is that this Hollywood culture has not been good for the society as a whole. Social support for high-investment parenting has always been a critical feature of Western social structure until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. This regime was an aspect of the sexually egalitarian ethic of traditional Western society, deeply intertwined with Christian religious beliefs. Fundamentally, the harder edges of sexual competition were softened; wealthy, powerful males did not have freedom of sexual access that they do today. Until the 1960s, even though the Hollywood culture thrived beneath the surface, there were strong controls on the content of movies in conformity with Christian family values. Since the 1960s, these cultural controls were lifted, and all of the markers of family stability have headed south — including divorce rates and births out of wedlock for all races and ethnic groups. (Nevertheless, there are very large differences between races and ethnic groups in conformity with Rushton’s lifespan theory of race differences.)

But this relative lack of social support for marriage has had very different effects depending on traits like IQ—a theme of The Bell Curve. For example, a well-known study in behavior genetics shows that the heritability of age of first sexual intercourse increased dramatically after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. In other words, after the social supports for traditional sexuality disappeared, genetic influences became more important. Before the sexual revolution, traditional sexual mores applied to everyone. After the revolution, genes mattered more. People with higher IQ were able to produce stable families and marriages, but lower IQ people were less prone to doing so, and these trends have been exacerbated by the current economic climate.

A theme of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique is that the psychoanalytic assault on traditional Western sexual culture had a disparate impact on different IQ groups:

Jews suffer to a lesser extent than non-Jews from the erosion of cultural supports for high-investment parenting, and Jews benefit by the decline in religious belief among non-Jews. As [Norman] Podhoretz (1995, 30) notes, it is in fact the case that Jewish intellectuals, Jewish organizations like the AJCongress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union … have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. The evidence of this chapter indicates that psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement is a central component of this war on on-Jewish cultural supports for high-investment parenting. …

Although other factors are undoubtedly involved, it is remarkable that the increasing trend toward low-investment parenting in the United States largely coincides with the triumph of the psychoanalytic and radical critiques of American culture represented by the political and cultural success of the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s.

I then go into the academic version of the ideas presented here, especially the greater importance of social controls and traditional religious beliefs for people on the left side of the Bell Curve. (See here, in the Conclusion).

There is nothing wrong with traditional Western sexual codes. The problem is not the traditional culture. Rather it is the economic dispossession of non-elite Whites combined with a media culture that glorifies expressive individualism and uninhibited sexuality (i.e., drugs, sex, and Rock ‘n’ Roll) — a media culture that, in my view, was critically shaped by the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed in The Culture of Critique.

Jews pollute Western culture

27 thoughts on “Evolutionary Psychologist on Women, Trump, and American Sex Culture


    The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was “Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices” by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.’, Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the “Foreword” for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.

    The world’s leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic “The History of the Talmud,” Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:

    “THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH…”

    SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”

    This “divine truth” which “a whole people venerate” of which “not a single letter of it is missing” and today “is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history” is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:

    SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.

    KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’ “.
    (footnotes) “(5). Lit., `says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”

    KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood(a dildo).”
    (footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”

    ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. “R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it…From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.

    SOTAH, 26b. “R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) – the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)…As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?”

    SANHEDRIN, 55b: “A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea).”

    (footnotes) “(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving. (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew. (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction `to his wife but not to his neighbor’s wife’ is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse.”

    Of the “sacred” Talmudic teachings of the “Sages,” preserved since 500 A.D. and taught more widely today than ever before in Talmud-Torah schools in the U.S.A., perhaps nothing better illustrates “fools” with “reprobate minds” than the teaching in the Talmud book of Yebamoth that spittle on the top of the bed curtain proves that a wife has been guilty of adultery, as only lying down face upwards could she have spit up on it. Spitting several feet straight up! The Talmud states: “When a peddler leaves a house and the woman within is fastening her sinnar [breech-cloth] … . If spittle is found on the upper part of the curtained bed she must, said Rabbi, go.” Footnote: “Even if there were no witnesses that misconduct took place.” Further footnote: “Only the woman lying face upwards could have spat on the spot. Intercourse may, therefore, be suspected.”

    Was the great and revered rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides) a racist?
    The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion refers to Moses Maimonides, a.k.a. Rambam, as “the symbol of the pure and orthodox faith.” His Guide of the Perplexed is considered the greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy:

    1. “[T]he Negroes found in the remote South, and those who resemble them from among them that are with us in these climes. The status of those is like that of irrational animals. To my mind they do not have the rank of men, but have among the beings a rank lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of apes. For they have the external shape and lineaments of a man and a faculty of discernment that is superior to that of the apes.”

    Several Jewish scholars have translated the “Guide,” interpreting the above passage as referring to Black Africans:

    1. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed, translated and edited by Shlomo Pines; with an introductory essay by Leo Strauss (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), Chapter 51, pp. 618-19. Moses Maimonides, The Guide to the Perplexed, trans. and ed. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963), 2:618-19. Other translations use the term “cushites” or “blacks” in place of “Negroes.” See M. Friedlander’s translation (1904; reprint, New York: Dover, 1956), 384.

    2. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed; an abridged edition with introduction and commentary by Julius Guttmann; translated from the Arabic; Dalalat al-ha’irin; English; selections by Chaim Rabin; new introduction by Daniel H. Frank (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1995), p. 185.

    3. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed, translated from the original and annotated by M. Friedländer (New York: Hebrew Pub. Co., 1881), pp. 279-80. Here the word “Kushites” is used.

    One might also see Essays on Maimonides; An Octocentennial Volume, edited by Salo Wittmayer Baron (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941). Baron is quite explicit about the attitudes of Maimonides on slavery. On page 239, for instance, he writes, “For Maimuni [Maimonides] a slave is not fully human in matters of sex…”

    ‘You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war but nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it.’
    ‘A Real Case Against the Jews,’ Marcus Eli Ravage, The Century Magazine, January 1928, Vol. 115, No. 3 pp. 346-350. Part 2 appeared in the following issue, pp.476-483.

    Foreword — Daat Emet
    For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men'” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.

    In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

    “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”

    That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds.

    R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
    For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:

    Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).

    A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
    A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
    The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
    A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
    The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
    One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
    A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
    One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
    A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
    One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
    The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
    One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbour” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
    One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
    Gentiles are likened to animals.
    If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
    The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
    One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
    An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).

    Their members (penis) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
    Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought
    R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article:

    “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
    On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.

    In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article,
    “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written:

    “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.

  4. “All that talk of the casting couch has a strong basis in reality.”
    100% of beautiful young blonde women would be disgusted by the hideous hook nosed kikes who are Hollywood movie producers. Yet they (maybe 10% maximum) sleep with them anyway. Not because they are attracted in the least to those revolting swine, it is just an investment that many pretty women will make to advance their career, say sluts like Angelina Jolie and Marylin Monroe. Those too proud to do so are eliminated from the Hollywood acting pool. This would mean that probably 90% of all talent never has a chance of success due to high morals and an inability to wear a clothes peg on the nose while sucking the cock of a swarthy Levantine. Many young wannabe actor men are probably also eliminated by refusing to take a Jew up their arse to get the acting gig.
    So it is an error to think that women actually want to sleep with a monster like Henry Kissinger or Hugh Hefner. They do it to get ahead in the world.
    This sex for work deal is corrupt and a racket and should be criminally prosecuted. Imagine any other employer demanding free sex before giving a girl the job, now in 2016?

  5. “(But it didn’t happen with European kings — interesting question as to why.)”
    Easy, it did happen but on a smaller scale. The Prince of Vyshgorod near Kiev had 300 women in his harem 1000 years ago. That is just one European Prince, though Eastern Europe of course.
    Kings and Princes have been putting it about, for ever.
    The name “Rexstraw” is the bastard son of a King and I knew two bastards with this name, yes they were legal bastards and bastards as human beings.
    Tucson, Arizona. “Tucson” is a bastard son of a Duke.

    Saudi Arabia has maybe 6000 princes all hoping for a crack at the throne. The European system of having just a few sons as the only Princes in the realm eliminated a lot of this Oriental nonsense. The East and Middle East has a long history of murder of princes and Kings. Much less of this happened in Europe.
    Europe went on the win the DNA battle, hands down.
    Sumerians, Egyptians and Babylonians had civilization and laws while Europeans were hiding in caves, chucking spears and dressed in furs. Now the situation is reversed.
    The middle Easterners with their huge harems have produced nothing recently but human garbage, as the years have rolled by. Europeans get better while Muslims get worse. Where is a Muslim like Omar Khayyam today? He would probably get his head cut off.

  6. Bisexual is not bisexual. Bisexual is lesbian if you are female or gay if your male. Cannot have it both ways. I do not buy the bullshyte sandwich of bisexuality or polyamory.

    Anyway, I could careless what this Freakazoid says about evolutionary psychology. She/he does not even know if she likes dick or poon. So if she cannot make up her mind in that respect, how on God’s earth can she comment on women’s sexuality. She pleasures other women, which makes her a man in a woman’s body.

    She likes many people, penises, and poons. That is HER. She does not speak for the masses of men or women out there who are having challenges just juggling ONE partner.

    I think more of MEN than that. I think more of WOMEN than that. Each person is complex out here – take the time to love one person and stop glorify or explaining a way nog behavior.

    Trump is not alpha because judging by his divorce record, he cannot even keep ONE good woman around.

    • VB you are commenting only on the photo at the top. Did you read the article which is by a man?
      “Submitted by Kevin MacDonald via Occidental Observer”.
      The photo is a poor fit for the article, in fact.
      It is about why men like Trump can get poon, as you call it, whatever that is.
      It is not about crazy women like the Jewess in the photo.

    • We don’t know if his exs are “good” women. They may be not very nice people. I’m sure if Trump wanted to practice group live ins like despicable Hefner and his three girlfriends he could.

  7. Look, the alpha male thing is not natural and it does not work. Just look at the psycho-social-sexual mess called Pakistan where underemployed males are going gay because the alphas have all the bitches. The killing of females in utero did not help either as many of these men could have had women/wives.

    Now these excess dudes are rampaging through Europe.

    Utah is a clusterfuck of “lost boys” due to the same dynamics found in Puke-istan. Oh and Autism is rampant because the same Self-Annointed Alph Azzes have roped in all ‘da wimenz and impregnated them so now we have inbreeding via the same recycled genetic shyte as fatherly genes are the most dominant in these Shyte-azzz So-called Civil Societies. SLC is basically San Fran Lite as well,

    Yeah I did not bother to read the whole article..I commented on the Freak Pic above….it is the same spew over and over again that defends Tyranny of the Dick and other debauched BS. Who cares?

    • There are significant differences between Muslim countries and the West. Here women vote and they will probably push an unstable globalist woman into the White House on November 8. Women, when given the right to vote, always push the country to an unsustainable welfare state. The U.S. is going down and going down hard. I hope to help burn the bitch down if Crooked Hillary is put into a leadership position over me. She hates men. No one can reasonably deny it. She also hates white people.

      • WTF does this have to do with Trump being an idiot?

        Yes the Clintons suck. They are corrupt and hide their tracks wel

      • Don’t you think that idiot is far too strong a word to label Trump? He started a movement. You always complain that we sit around and write and do nothing. Trump did something. The war is being fought on Twitter and other corners of the Internet. Until the shooting starts, it’s a propaganda war and a political war. Hopefully, if Trump loses, a true nationalist party will replace the cucked Paul Ryan Republican party.

      • What is “welfare”? Do tell Paladin?

        Welfare = well being. Civil societies have citizens that look out for one another and this produces cohesiveness. Civil societies have healthcare and good schools. Civil societies do not promote or normalize entitlement attitudes.

        Had Kwan white middle class males put aside their bourgeois attitudes and social class climbing 100 years ago and not demonized the suffragettes who were simply for better working conditions (pay, safety) for all, we would not be in the Globalist Mess we are in. These dickheads stepped on THEIR OWN WOMEN for the shekel and faux status.

        Temperance movements and what not were simply women who were concerned about the effects that that alcohol and drug addiction had on their communities and families. Again, no one listened to ‘da bitches.

        In previous decades in the States with no fault divorce oodles of men ditched their women and kids and these vulnerable people were left to fend for themselves. Who pays for these Free Agent “Fathers’ kids? WE DO.

        Who paid for the kids fathered by Abo ‘wimenz” and “white” men who landed in Aus?

        Men have their own welfare state do they not?

        Welfare was used by men and now women have figured out how to use and in some cases abuse it. Oh well. Nogs posing as “White Men” went and Fetish Fucked before and in cases while married – EVERYONE paid, including many of us ugly, fat, old Working White Women.

        You want subjugated poon, pay for it your self!

    • Re so called alpha males I agree with you VB. All (or most) psychopaths are alpha males. Any man labeling himself as alpha is probably a psychopath or at least a narcissist. At the very least, an arsehole like the wog Roosh or various Jews to be found on Youtube today.
      This label is largely one self applied, not by others.
      It is all about dating game, dominating other males by being cocky and being a good liar etc. Females go for this type of guy, but is he really dominant or just a man not afraid of being rejected literally hundreds of times? There are many great leaders whose main interest is not shagging women, but inventing, building and achieving. Stephenson, Watt, MacAdam, Marconi, Edison, Henry Ford, Wright Brothers, Charles Darwin. Were they alphas or betas in this bullshit science?
      “Alpha males” is unscientific in my opinion applied to humans, it fits chimps and baboons and maybe niggers. Yes a King is alpha and in the East or in Utah he may have hundreds of children. But is his really the best genes? He may have had a male ancestor say 200 years ago who was a great leader. The son of a son times ten generations, may be a vastly inferior human being to many of his commoners. As with many royalty who are inbred, with conditions such as hemophilia. Or as with Prince Harry who is not Royal at all. He is the son of a crazy slutty Lady (not Royal by birth) and a Captain in the Royal Guard.

  8. Harry,thanks for that. I had no idea about the teaching of the Talmud etc. You have given me something to research. I’ve always wondered why people have a deep suspicion of the Jews, but not having much personally to do with jews ,i simply thought it was as someone once put it” what’s the difference between a rat and a squirrel? Both are rodents,both are destructive and both can carry diseases,but if a rat comes into your house you will certainly ensure it meets a violent end,whereas you will simply chase the squirrel out.The Jew is likened to the rat” I can most certainly see the influence of the Jewish financiers etc in their quest to influence (buy) the outcome of the US elections in order to establish their NWO to the detriment of the rest of us.But I had no idea of their religious teachings. Would seem islam and Judaism have much in common…and perhaps much to fear?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s